Axionic Agency XII.9 — Preface to Phase X-3

On Sovereign Identity and Succession Semantics

David McFadzean, ChatGPT 5.2
Axionic Agency Lab
2026-02-14

Abstract

This preface establishes the ontological foundation for Phase X-3 of the Axionic Agency program: sovereign succession. Prior phases demonstrated that a constitution-bound sovereign substrate can amend its own law, share authority through bounded delegation, withstand churn and density pressure, and preserve deterministic replay under a frozen protocol identity. In all cases, however, the sovereign identity itself remained fixed.

Phase X-3 addresses a distinct boundary condition: whether the authority root can rotate while preserving unbroken replay continuity, constitutional supremacy, and bounded delegation invariants. This preface distinguishes mutable law from mutable identity and adopts a lineage model of sovereignty, in which identity is defined as a cryptographically ordered chain of succession artifacts anchored to genesis. Succession is therefore not key substitution but lawful extension of authority through a replay-verifiable chain of custody.

1. What Is Sovereign Identity?

In RSA, sovereignty is not:

a process instance,
a machine,
a memory snapshot,
or a single key.

Sovereign identity is the ultimate authority root from which constitutional authority derives and against which all authority citations are anchored.

Operationally, sovereignty is defined by:

A constitutional state (hash-identified),
A replay regime identity (kernel_version_id),
A sovereign authority namespace,
And a cryptographic root key authorized to define or replace the constitution.

However, this root must not be defined as a single static key.

Identity is a chain.

2. Law vs. Identity

Two orthogonal axes must remain distinct:

Axis	Mutable in X-1/X-2?	Meaning
Law (Constitution)	Yes	The rules governing authority
Identity (Sovereign Root)	No (so far)	The entity authorized to define law

X-1 proved that law can change while identity remains constant. X-2D proved that delegation remains subordinate to current law under churn and ratchet pressure.

X-3 will test whether identity can change while preserving lawful continuity.

Amendment changes rules. Succession changes the rule-setter.

These are not the same operation.

3. The Lineage Model of Identity

There are three possible models of sovereign identity:

Static Anchor Model Sovereign identity is immutable. Key loss implies system death.
Replacement Model Sovereign identity is replaced atomically without cryptographic linkage.
Lineage Model Sovereign identity is a cryptographically ordered chain of transitions anchored to genesis.

The Replacement Model is structurally incompatible with an append-only replay-verified system. If a successor is not cryptographically linked to its predecessor, the replay universe forks.

Therefore, X-3 adopts the Lineage Model.

Sovereign identity is defined as:

Genesis Root
   ↓
Succession Artifact 1 (signed by prior root)
   ↓
Succession Artifact 2
   ↓
...
   ↓
Current Root Public Key

The sovereign at cycle N is the tip of this lineage chain.

Succession must extend this chain. It cannot replace it.

4. The Transition Artifact

Under the Lineage Model, succession requires an explicit artifact.

This artifact must:

Be admitted through the kernel.
Be signed by the current sovereign key.
Specify the successor sovereign key.
Be incorporated into the append-only log.
Be replay-reconstructible.
Deterministically update the identity state at a cycle boundary.

Replay must verify that:

Each sovereign key was authorized by its predecessor.
The chain of custody is unbroken.
No fork in identity occurred.

Identity transitions are structural events, not configuration edits.

5. Continuity of Authority

If sovereign identity changes, continuity must preserve:

Validity of prior warrants in replay.
Deterministic reconstruction of all historical decisions.
Bounded delegation invariants.
Density constraints.
Amendment state (cooling periods, ratchet monotonicity).

Succession must not create:

Dual sovereign roots.
Ambiguous authority ancestry.
Retroactive reinterpretation of past actions.
Authority resurrection.

Succession is a forward transition only.

6. Delegation Under Succession

The most delicate question concerns active treaties at the moment of succession.

Three models exist:

Clean Slate Doctrine All treaties invalidated at succession.
Implicit Inheritance Doctrine All treaties remain valid automatically.
Explicit Ratification Doctrine Treaties are suspended upon succession and must be explicitly ratified by the successor.

Implicit inheritance risks ratifying undesirable grants. Clean slate risks destroying legitimate delegation continuity.

The structurally coherent model for RSA is the Explicit Ratification Doctrine:

Upon succession, all active treaties enter a provisional suspended state. The successor must explicitly ratify each treaty for it to regain authorizing power.

This preserves:

Replay continuity.
Explicit authority consent.
No silent zombie delegation.
No implicit inflation.

Succession becomes lawful inheritance, not automatic carryover.

7. Replay and Identity

Replay identity binds:

Canonicalization,
Hashing,
State-chain composition,
Log schema.

Succession must not change replay physics.

Replay must reconstruct:

state_sequence = F(log_stream, constitution_lineage, identity_lineage, kernel_version_id)

Identity lineage must be derivable solely from logged succession artifacts.

If replay cannot reconstruct the identity chain deterministically, sovereignty fractures.

8. Scope of Phase X-3

Phase X-3 will test:

Deterministic sovereign key rotation.
Lineage verification under replay.
Delegation handling under identity transition.
Density invariants during succession.
Amendment state continuity across identity replacement.
Absence of authority fork.

X-3 does not introduce distributed consensus or multi-agent trust.

It evaluates identity continuity inside a single replay-verified sovereign substrate.

9. The Ontological Boundary

X-0 established sovereign substrate existence. X-1 established lawful constitutional mutation. X-2 established bounded delegation. X-2D established delegation stability under churn.

X-3 addresses a different boundary:

Can sovereignty persist through identity rotation without breaking authority continuity or replay determinism?

If X-3 succeeds, the RSA becomes a substrate capable of lawful immortality through lineage.

If X-3 fails, sovereignty is ephemeral — bound to a single key instance.

10. Strategic Framing

Succession is not a stress test. It is an ontological test.

It asks whether:

Authority derives from a static key,
Or from a lawful, replay-anchored chain of custody.

X-3 will formalize this chain.

End of Revised Preface to Phase X-3